'Justified' Torture: Terrorize world for sake of US security?

The CIA - and many top-ranking American politicians - insist that without torture, they wouldn't have got Osama bin Laden. RT talks about this with Sara Flounders, from the anti-war group the 'International Action Centre'.

Well now Sara is obviously not a big fan of torture me neither you guys think its ok and if so do you think it works? And is the USA a big bad bully?

Three reasons torture can never be justified...

1 - It violates International Law. Remember when the USA was the "knight in shining armor" during the post-WW 2 Nuremburg trials? Well, now the shoes on the other foot.

2 - It violates Federal Laws. We've signed treaty after treaty outlawing torture. According to our Constitution that settles it completely.

3 - Torture doesn't work. Even the Mossad came to that conclusion years ago. Torture is most commonly used to extract the information you WANT them to confess to. Give a professional torturer 15 minutes and I guarantee you they will get you to confess to the Lincoln assassination. Never mind that it happened 145+ years ago.

I know all the fans of the show "24" will be saying that the ends justifies the means. However, no matter what some DOJ @ssh@t claims, it is illegal. Period!

ETA - Oh, and a fourth really good reason: it's ethically and morally wrong. Forgot about that point.

That this is even a discussion is evidence that we live in a fascist state where people who should be thinking for themselves and fighting for freedom are instead being conditioned to support a mass-murdering, endless-war waging, torturing band of psychopaths. I will never understand how it is not obvious to more people that we are the terrorists.

hmm so lets get this straight.

justified torture is wrong and sending 40 dudes into a house and putting a bullet in obls head is ok ??

and people please take of those rose colored glasses with what happened in ww2.

things happened there that most people are oblvivious to.

reply to post by neo96


It's completely true that there is much that lurks beneath the written history of WW 2.

Regardless, the idea that well-documented War Criminals are not only walking around free, but are oftentimes making boucoup bucks off of speaking engagements instead of standing in a docket in the Hague is plain old wrong. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, with no man above another. (Yeah, I know it sounds naive, but on paper it is true!)

Also, what about when one of our brave soldiers is captured? What is to stop them from torturing our friend. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Finally, this removes any high ground the USA might have occupied in the past. How can we wag a finger at China or any nation about human rights when it's a known fact we are torturing people?

reply to post by Hessling


not really trying to argue here but doesnt matter what we do those laws are followed by most civilized countries.

and not followed by others especially when people have been murdered and behead people.

i am not sitting here trying to justifed torture but at the same time if people condemn one action such as torture and it is totally acceptable by law to put a bullet in someone.

the high ground here is no torture and no bullets to the back of the head or front.

thats all i am saying right now there is a double standard.

and bush got creamed for torture and murder and obama is the geatest american president for murder.

honestly i am tired of the double standards.

reply to post by neo96


Thanks for the clarification. Like I've told you before, I read your posts on threads I've subscribed to.

You're right about the double standards. So very right!

At a time where I feel this country is losing its founding principles, torture (or "legal" assassination for that matter) just drives another nail into our country's idealistic coffin.

Sad. Very sad!

Originally posted by neo96
and bush got creamed for torture and murder and obama is the geatest american president for murder.

There is an inherent difference between torturing someone who wasn’t even afforded a trial and found guilty of a crime — and, in fact, many of them turned out to be completely innocent — and targeting one person who admitted of being the mastermind and main supporter of several terrorist attacks, and the leader of that criminal organization that perpetrated them.

Pretending otherwise is to try to compare the incomparable.

Torture is never permissible, not only because, as Hessling pointed out, it is against international and US law, but because it’s an affront to our morals and values. The fact that others torture or employ other barbaric techniques and methods, does not excuse us to legitimately adopt these methods.

Should we, for example, adopt China’s non-existent child labor or environmental protection laws too? There are things that civilized people just don’t do. I’m perfectly fine with my country rejecting these barbaric and uncivilized methods, and others employing them, because it speaks volumes about our character, morals and values, and little about theirs.

I am not, with this, saying I support what has been done under the current administration. I am on record against this administration’s determination to keep Guantanamo open, the reliance on drone attacks — particularly under the control of the CIA — and other methods and tactics employed on the “war against terrorism.”

This particular raid, on Bin Laden’s compound, however, considering past and even present practices, is considerable more compliant with international and domestic norms. The raid was done using law enforcement levels of force — instead of indiscriminately dropping bombs on the compound without regard for everyone in it, a specific criminal was targeted, and those that were armed and resisted were killed.

Would I have preferred Osama Bin Laden to have been captured, to eventually face trial for his crimes? Undoubtedly.

But unless there is compelling evidence that demonstrates the special forces operators didn’t try their best to minimize the number of causalities — as already reflected by the low number of casualties — I remain convinced the appropriate force and methods were employed.

honestly i am tired of the double standards.

Purely partisan motivations are very tiring too, and, unfortunately, you seem incapable of disassociating from them when posting.

reply to post by aptness


and apparently you can not read. and the only person trying to make this partisan is you.

another thing that is tiring is people twisting posts to suit there own needs.

carry on.

reply to post by aptness


ya sorry a[ptness your a smart guy and I do appreciate your input but I disagree with you a lot I think Obama has gotten a free pass and he has employed torture and maintained gitmo taken us to war unilaterally without congress and this execution of OBL would've of been a far greater victory had they taken him alive and been able to prove he was what they said he was...

I dont advocate terrorism of any kind but in my eye the USA has done a lot more of it than anyone else.
73,000 troops killed in the war on Iraq alone and millions of civilians dead over lies about WMD's those ppl deserve a bullet every bit as much as he did same with Obama who got us into Libya with even less justification.

I'm against any matter or form of torture.

But I'm very disapointed and enraged by these spin meisters that glorify the torture of suspects at Gitmo, and other foreign secret CIA bases.

"Glen L. Carle, a retiired CIA officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002, said in a phone interview Tuesday, that coercive techniques 'didn't provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information.' He said that while some of his colleagues defended the measures, 'Everyone was deeply concerned and most felt it was un-American and did not work.'

'The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out OBL in 2003,' said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council.'

After the capture in March 2003 of Mr. Mohammed, the chief planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, he was subjected to the most harrowing set of the so called enhanced measures, which included slamming prisoners into walls, shackling them in stress positions and keeping them awake for as long as 180 hours, Like two other prisoners, he was subjected to waterboarding.

According to an American official familiar with his interrogation, Mr. Mohammed was first asked about Mr. Kuwatti in the fall of 2003, months after the waterboarding. He acknowledged having known him but said that the courier was 'retired' and of little signifance.

In 2004, however, a Qaeda operative named Hassan Ghul, captured in Iraq, gave a different account of Mr. Kuwaiti, according to the American official. Mr. Ghul told interrogators that Mr. Kuwaiti was a trusted courier who was close to Bin Laden, as well as to Mr. Mohammed and to Abu Faraj al-Libi, who had become the operational chief of Al Qaeda after Mr. M ohammed's capture.

The details of Mr. Ghuls treatment are unclear, though the CIA says he was not waterboarded. The CIA asked the justice dept. to authorize other harsh methods for use on him, but it is unclear which were used. One official recalled that Mr. Ghul was 'quite cooperative' saying that rough treatment, if any, would have been brief.

Armed with Mr. Ghul's account of the courier's significance, interrogators asked Mr. Mohammed again about Mr. Kuwaiti. He stuck to his story, according to the official. After Mr. Libi was captured in May 2005 and turned over to the CIA, he too was asked. He denied knowing Mr. Kuwaiti and gave a different name for Bin Laden's courier, whom he called Maulawi Jan. Cia analysts would never find such a person and eventually concluded the name was MR. Libi's invention, the official recalled.

Because Mr. Mohammed and MR. Libi had both steered interrogators away from Mr. Kuwaiti, CIA officials concluded that they must be protecting him for an important reason."

Quotes from NYT, Wed, May 4, 2011 Debate Revived Over Harsh Questioning

reply to post by Hessling

Right on.

Related thread: Bin Laden Death Reignites Debate Over CIA Tactics

This is a dialog that should be ongoing and under continuous scrutiny, not just when and "event" occurs. It's so predictable that the usual suspects always take advantage for the piggyback exposure.

(Putting fire extinguisher next to me. Re; the flames)

If it were one of my troops, if it were my child, my wife, my fellow soldier in danger and torture could eliminate the need for more deaths, I'd put a blow torch to certain aspects of anatomy. I'd find bamboo sticks for finger nails. I'd use a damned Black & Decker drill to "elicit" information that could save lives.
This is war. Not a damned pillow fight.
Play by the rules? Hell, that's what they're counting on.

Sorry if this bursts some nice feelings and happy hearts, but that is my opinon. And I'm sticking with it.

Originally posted by beezzer
(Putting fire extinguisher next to me. Re; the flames)

If it were one of my troops, if it were my child, my wife, my fellow soldier in danger and torture could eliminate the need for more deaths, I'd put a blow torch to certain aspects of anatomy. I'd find bamboo sticks for finger nails. I'd use a damned Black & Decker drill to "elicit" information that could save lives.
This is war. Not a damned pillow fight.
Play by the rules? Hell, that's what they're counting on.

Sorry if this bursts some nice feelings and happy hearts, but that is my opinon. And I'm sticking with it.

Ya I cant say I don't feel the same but when a government thats suppose to represent truth justice and the American way does it its something a lot worst. I mean if torture worked it might be justifiable but we know it doesn't produce reliable results.

reply to post by UcDat


The government is supposed to be the representation of it's people. It represents the "ideal" instead.

If a group of people took my wife and we happened to capture one who refused to talk, then torture would be the only alternative. I dare anyone to take the moral stand that they wouldn't torture.

Originally posted by beezzer
(Putting fire extinguisher next to me. Re; the flames)

If it were one of my troops, if it were my child, my wife, my fellow soldier in danger and torture could eliminate the need for more deaths, I'd put a blow torch to certain aspects of anatomy. I'd find bamboo sticks for finger nails. I'd use a damned Black & Decker drill to "elicit" information that could save lives.
This is war. Not a damned pillow fight.
Play by the rules? Hell, that's what they're counting on.

Sorry if this bursts some nice feelings and happy hearts, but that is my opinon. And I'm sticking with it.

It's one thing if its you.

Reality is that it is the government that tortures.

One day you wouldn't mind if they are torturing some muslim guy, but what if the next terrorist attack is done by someone who is similar to your particular demographic? Hmm you look suspicious and we have a credible threat...time for those thumbscrews.

Torturing for info is also a very slippery slope, especially in the hands of a government that tries to protect its own power. Extracting fake confessions is a favorite tactic in order to make political opponents look bad.

reply to post by UcDat

I’m not entirely sure why you are telling me this. I was never in favor of the war in Iraq, and I’ve always disagreed with the tactic and methods used in Afghanistan and the so called “war on terrorism” generally.

Using the military to occupy entire countries to hunt a few criminals is beyond stupid — it’s counterproductive, very demanding on our troops and financially expensive.

And no, nothing justifies torture. You, and beezeer, are entitled to your opinions, but they are legally and morally wrong opinions nonetheless.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by UcDat

 

The government is supposed to be the representation of it's people. It represents the "ideal" instead.

If a group of people took my wife and we happened to capture one who refused to talk, then torture would be the only alternative. I dare anyone to take the moral stand that they wouldn't torture.

I would rather threaten their family and attempt to kidnap one of their own, preferably a wife or child as well. I am sure the CIA is very good at doing this. Torture isn't needed, the threat of retaliation is.

Originally posted by Vikus

Originally posted by beezzer
(Putting fire extinguisher next to me. Re; the flames)

If it were one of my troops, if it were my child, my wife, my fellow soldier in danger and torture could eliminate the need for more deaths, I'd put a blow torch to certain aspects of anatomy. I'd find bamboo sticks for finger nails. I'd use a damned Black & Decker drill to "elicit" information that could save lives.
This is war. Not a damned pillow fight.
Play by the rules? Hell, that's what they're counting on.

Sorry if this bursts some nice feelings and happy hearts, but that is my opinon. And I'm sticking with it.

It's one thing if its you.

Reality is that it is the government that tortures.

One day you wouldn't mind if they are torturing some muslim guy, but what if the next terrorist attack is done by someone who is similar to your particular demographic? Hmm you look suspicious and we have a credible threat...time for those thumbscrews.

Torturing for info is also a very slippery slope, especially in the hands of a government that tries to protect its own power. Extracting fake confessions is a favorite tactic in order to make political opponents look bad.

So it's not that torture is bad. But the REASONS for it? I expect an enemy to torture. Regardless of who that enemy is.
I'd torture to gain information to save lives of my allies, my family.
For a government to do what you suggest, would be treasonous.

Originally posted by Vikus

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by UcDat

 

The government is supposed to be the representation of it's people. It represents the "ideal" instead.

If a group of people took my wife and we happened to capture one who refused to talk, then torture would be the only alternative. I dare anyone to take the moral stand that they wouldn't torture.

I would rather threaten their family and attempt to kidnap one of their own, preferably a wife or child as well. I am sure the CIA is very good at doing this. Torture isn't needed, the threat of retaliation is.

Arm-chair quarterbacking is all good and well. But I suspect that even the most ardent anti-war, anti-torture advocate would be boiling oil if it was someone or something important that they needed, RIGHT NOW!